Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In which case there are no truly valid tests of the method, as historical records cease to become useful for such things after times that are still "young" in terms of testing radioscopic methods . . . which would imply that you are taking all the radioscopic dataing methods on faith. Wouldn't that make you religious, Fyron?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There are about a dozen that are used, essentially anything that decays in a radioactive fashon could theoretically be used for radioscopic dating. However, besides each specific method's individual problems, they all have a particular set of problematic assumptions lying at their cores:

1) Initial values of parent and daughter elements
These values haven't been observed in the distant past that the object comes from. Without these, determining the age via the half-life and the amounts of present parent and daughter products is impossible. These values are assumed, although normally based off of modern values (which may or may not be valid, but there is no way to tell)

2) Non-migration of both the parent and daughter elements.
More of the parent element produces a false young age, less produces a false old age. More of the daughter element produces a false old age, less produces a false young age. If you assume that a rock has been around for a long time, not being observed, how can anyone be certain that this migration hasn't happend? You can't.
While specimin collectors try to get samples from the field where this assumption is reasonable, the testing facility virtually always throws out much of the data from every sample because the ages resulting from that data are essentially zero. They levy charges of leaching or contamination on that portion, and throw it out. However, if the specimine collectors can't tell a contaminated sample from an uncontaminated sample, how can one tell in the lab which sample is not contaminated? They differentiate based on assumed old ages, and throw out any results that don't match that assumption. Accepting their assumption is an act of faith, yet these methods are commonly used as valid. That would make the people doing this people of faith, and thus religious (after a fashion) wouldn't it?

[ March 14, 2003, 21:33: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, as they are based off of sound scientific principles. We have no direct evidence of the existence of electrons. But, we still know that they exist. This has nothign to do with faith, or being religious in any sense of the word.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You appear to have missed the second half of my post.
Let me quote myself:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

[ March 14, 2003, 21:38: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You will likely find a better argument over at talkorigins.org. I think your three points are addressed here:
isocron dating

In the future, after you make one of these Posts, you can do a search on talkorigins and cut-n-paste your findings in a reply to your own post. Not only will it save others the time from having to look it up themselves, but it will inflate your post count! Everyone wins!

-spoon

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

quote:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am a Troll of faith. I believe the refrigerator light turns off when I shut the door. I believe it because I have tested the door switch and peaked by prying the magnet strip aside. I rest easy with this faith.

Those of little faith have limited themselves. My faith has led to believing in things working when I can not see them. My faith has led to building complex computer chips.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

You cannot measure the diameter of a hair with a measuring tape with lines every centimeter.
Different instruments must be used to measure different orders of magnitude, and every measure has an error interval.

Scientists know Radio-isotope dating is not an accurate measure and can only give an approximate result. They admit that, that is honest and gives more value to the result.

It's not a matter of faith to say "We estimate this rock is 10,000,000 y.o."

It would be a matter of faith it they said "It is written this rock was created 10,000,000 years ago.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, I was on my way out, and did not write a full reply. I was just clarifying that it had nothing to do with faith as used in a religious sense.

Jack:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, there is little more to say after what Andres said. No legitimate science has ever claimed that radio-isotope dating is an exact science. It is an estimation, based off of thorough experimentation and calculation as to the half-lives of the relevant isotopes. This is why using radio-isotope dating is not a matter of faith; it is based off of verifiable data. It is not a matter of: the Bible says so, so it is true. That is accepting something on religious faith. You are trying to use the connotations of the word faith to equate "believing in" science to believing in religion. This does not work, because there is no ground of comparison between science and religion. Scientific belief is always open to being wrong. If you find evidence contradicting religious beliefs, the evidence has to be wrong. The religious beliefs don't change to reflect accurate new evidence; scientific beliefs do. I do indeed have faith in science, but it is not at all like faith in religion. I can easily look at the data collected by scientists to see if their conclusions make sense. What religion does is to say, "this is how it is, accept it." I do not simply accept scientific suppositions as fact. In order to believe them, you have to accept religions suppositions as fact, as there is no possible evidence or experimentation to prove them. Religious "faith" is accepting something because that is what they say it is like. Scientific "faith" is accepting suppositions that have been based off of careful experimentation. It is accepting that there are people out there with more scientific knowledge than myself, and trusting them to know how to run experiments. It is being able to examine their data, and also to be able to run their experiments myself to see if I get the same results. All of this is lacking in religious "faith", so your argument that by me believing scientific principles equates to me being religious is baseless.

[ March 14, 2003, 23:36: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

I have to make mention of this supposed inability of religion or religious people to accept change or contradictory evidence. If that were true, there would have been no Judaism, since it links to a founder in Abraham as having turned to Yahweh first. Christianity was built on the introduction of "new evidence or theory" to Judaism, and Islam was a radical change from either of those two but also claiming some connection. The Protestant Reformation began with Martin Luther challenging Rome by presenting a series of theses that argued inside of Christendom. Hinduism is replete with examples of individuals changing the religious practices (Krishna stands out), and Buddhism ran counter to much of the prevailing Hindu or other beliefs, whether you talk about Siddhartha, Bodhidharma or Padmasambhava. And there are instances where the leading individuals in one or another religion found reason to change to another through personal conviction, not coercion.

And it also goes to say that many scientists have, in their day, been attacked, ostracized or ignored by the other scientists because what they presented ran counter to whatever the current theories and understandings were. Many scientists, like artists, gained much of their appreciation in times after they first published or made known their ideas, sometimes after their death.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

My point was that religions do not make progress (in the sense of overall advancement, not just a different set of essentially the same thing), whereas science does. Converting to a different religion is not "progress", it is just taking a different set of dieties and stories on faith. Using new religious practices does not equate to changing because of accurate new evidence, it equates to placing your religious faith in a different direction.

I also never once said that all scientists were 100% accepted. Science does not change itself overnight. It takes good solid evidence for theories to change, not just some guy saying, "hey, it's like this!" and then suddenly everyone starts believing him. That would be an act of religious faith, not scientific reasoning.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is a fascinating argument. I see you keep repeating it so I have a question: Do you consider the concept of evolution to be science or faith? It was expounded by a guy named Darwin as a possibility in the 19th century, and immediately accepted by the scientific community -- without proof. Ever since then it has been repeated and repeated as fact and anyone who dares to point out any flaws in it is subjected to the same sort of persecution that you see in religious disputes -- character assassination, blacklisting (getting people fired or breaking contracts), etc. It really looks to me like evolution was the 'new faith' invented to replace the old faith, and that's why it cannot be allowed to fail. Which makes it not science. We had a whole thread about it a while back, you can probably find it with the forum search.

[ March 15, 2003, 17:39: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Evolution theory is science, and it's based on observation.
It's not repeating what makes it valid, it's that it is still the best explanation consistent with most available data.
There are many fossil evidences of evolution of many species and examples of natural selection (the mechanism of evolution) in action in living species.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

I think what Dogscoff had to say about his philosophy of religion is relevant here. As is usual with these discussions, we are operating on a number of different levels. As Dogscoff argued, there is a huge difference between organized religion (the Church) and a personal spiritual journey. I would argue that the path to enlightenment is a sort of personal progress (although the Zen masters would whack me around the shoulders for conceiving of it in this way http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ).

On the other hand, progress (the Enlightenment philosophes at work again - the same people for whom Catholicism was a superstition) in its modern usage is irrelevent to religion. Early Christianity, for example, eschewed the material in favor of the spiritual (the Papacy of the Medieval and Early Modern periods is another story) and would have scoffed at the importance of worldly progress. Saying that religion does not have progress is like saying you can't score goals in baseball. It simply does not apply.

Moreover,in the spirit of the Devil's Advocate (and post-modernists' advocate, too), I would like to toss out the postulate that progress itself is a modern myth. On one hand we have modern medicine, computers, cd players, SUV's, and Quick Marts. On the other hand, we have the atomic bomb, nerve gas, the Holocaust, ethnic cleansing, and totalitarianism (impossible without modern technology). Are we really improving ourselves?

About twenty years ago I would have answered a resounding yes. Now I'm not so sure...

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Chronon:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">We have _always_ had ethnic cleansing. This is nothing new.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My entire point was that the "faith" involved in believing in science is wholey unequivalent to believing in religion. That was only one example of how the "faith" is in no way equivalent.

Baron Munchausen :
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is only repeated because people keep missing my point. I have no choice but to reword it, in hopes that they can see it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As Andres said, the theory of evolution is based off of observed evidence, experimentation, etc. It is the model that best fits with the evidence and such, so it is the commonly accepted theory. If new accurate evidence surfaced that wholey contradicted evolution and pointed to something else, then the theory would be modified or replaced, as need be. Now take a religious example: creation. Creation is not based off of evidence or experimentation, it is based off of what [insert name of holy scripture here] says, period. If new accurate evidence comes out that contradicts the holy scripture, the evidence must be flawed. Religion is not subject to change of its major views in the way that science is. This is another part of how the "faith" involved in accepting religious and scientific views is wholely unrelated.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Hmm the most basic Faith vs Fact
What was there before there was something?
Where did that something come from?

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">One theory:
1) Nothing
2) Nothing

The follow-up:
1) What was there before God?
2) Where did God come from?

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wrong example. The issue is not which theory is 'better'. The issue is that evolution is NOT a proven theory. I am asserting uncertainty, inconclusiveness, not a rival theory. This is the instant assumption of the believers in Scientism, though. Anyone who challenges evolution must be a religious fundamentalist.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Electron theory is not a "proven theory" either.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, but they are NOT different. There is such a thing as science but it is a long, long way from providing a complete world-view. To fill in the gaps a series of myths have been erected over the past couple of centuries. Gradualist evolution is one of them.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Gradualist evolution is much broader than the 'evidence' which is claimed to prove it. It incorporates some, some, observations of the real world, but it glosses over major gaps and in fact defines the issues in ways that makes proof essentially impossible in any practical sense.

Variation within species has been observed, yes. Evolution of one species into another has NOT been observed. And it cannot pratically be expcted to be observed, since it takes millions of years. How convenient.

The so-called 'fossil record' is so fragmentary that they're not even certain if they can identify species. They are usually talking about families (the next level up in taxonomy) when identifying fossils. And there are millions of years and thousands of miles between the examples cited in an 'evolutionary line'. The horse for example, is supposed to have evolved on Asia, Europe, and North America over 30+ million years. What is the 'proof' that these widely scattered, and structurally very different, fossils represent one line of evolution? The High Priests^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H experts say so! Oh, that's great.

See:
The Transformist Illusion by Douglas Dewar (DeHoff Publications, 1957)

This was bad enough. But in the Last few decades another branch of science has come up with outright contradictory evidence. Genetics is now advanced enough to compare the chromozones of various species and see how similar they are. It turns out that structurally similar species which have so-far been classed as related may have far less genetic similarity to each other than to completely unrelated (in the 'scientific' taxonomy system) species! The various species of frogs for example, don't have the same number of chromozones, let alone a high degree of similarity in genetic content in those chromozones.

Where does this leave the comparisons of fossils? All you have to go on in a fossil is 'gross anatomy' -- structure. Which is now known to NOT be related to genetic makeup. The 'fossil record' is now useless as any sort of 'proof' of evolution. We have no way of knowing the relationship of the various fossilized creatures that we find scattered all around the world.

Which brings us back to the problem. Evolution cannot be proven. Yet it is accepted, enforced even, by the modern scientific community. It's an article of faith, the new faith of Scientism. And as I said before, identifying the new faith as a faith and not a science doesn't mean I am a supporter of the old faith. This is not an either/or. It's a NOT.

[ March 15, 2003, 23:14: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

If your rant (other than the whole Scientism junk) actually represents the full situation, then the theory of evolution will be changed to accomodate the inconsistencies. It will not happen overnight, but it will happen. In fact, this serves to corroborate everything I have said, not disprove it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I said that if scientific theories are proven conclusively to be wrong, science will evolve.

The theories proposed by Newton were changed after people like Einstien came along. There was a lot of resistence, but it did happen. These new theories have been changed some in recent years due to new evidence. The changes met with resistance. I never once said that science changed at the drop of a hat. It takes a lot of conclusive evidence to prove something wrong.

Going back to the religious aspect: religions (primarily in reference to the fundamentals of the religion, mostly as evidenced by the religious scriptures of that religion) do not change like science does to include new evidence. They stay the same, and declare the new evidence to be wrong. Science is not equatable to religion.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Which is why I assert that evolution is not science. It does NOT change, it asserts that any contrary evidence is wrong.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So what we have is a choice between:
a) Who knows, it could be anything.
vs
b) So far "evolution" is the closest.

One is useful, the others are not.
(A) Is giving up. It does not help.
Instead, you go with (B) until something better comes along.

All we need is someone with a better idea.
Where better means:
a) matches the already-observed phenomena.
b) can be used to predict future observations more accurately.
c) is simpler. (Nice but not nessesary, of course)

For evolution in particular:
I have no doubt that it will change. The problem is you can't expect instantaneous results. Also, if you want to get rid of evolution, you need to BUILD a better, competing theory instead of just trying to demolish the old theory.

[ March 15, 2003, 23:54: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

I didn't see any indication that the debate was about 'usefullness'. I saw Fyron asserting that there was some huge difference between 'science' and 'religion'. What I wanted to point out is that a close examination of some fields of 'science' shows them to be religious in character. So this big distinction is not so clear as he would like to think it is. And anyway, I'd sure like to know what 'use' an untestable theory is. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Sure we've got a lot of practical benefits from various biological sciences, some of which might have been developed while trying to investigate evolution, but what have we gotten from evolution specifically?

P.S. Who says you have to have a new theory before you can dispose of the old one? Why can't I disprove the phlogiston theory of heat until I develop the radiation theory? It's easy to do. Grind a couple of wheels together and see that they never stop heating each other up by friction.

[ March 16, 2003, 00:14: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, it does not assert that any and all contrary evidence is wrong. The contrary evidence is relatively recent, and the re-evaluation of the theory is still on-going.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

In this case, Fyron, it is you who are wrong. Publicly doubting Darwinian evolution is fatal to academic and scientific careers. The quickest references would be Online, but you could find many more if you were interested. Try visiting http://www.alternativescience.com/sc...censorship.htm for some examples. There are many less formal situations with the same intent as some of the examples given here. For example there was a recent thread on Usenet about some biology professor who would not allow students to graduate unless they asserted that they 'believed in' evolution. I suppose I could go look that up. Or you could if you were interested in contrary evidence to your own beliefs.

[ March 16, 2003, 02:08: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That prof could use a smack upside the head http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Requiring a real understanding of it is certainly not a problem. Without learning the strengths and weaknesses of the current theories, what chance do you have of improving things?

I'm not a chemistry major, but I'm sure there must have been some good uses for the phlogiston theory. Chemical reactions are what it is good for, rather than mechanical things. ISTM that "Phlogiston concentration" would relate to the degree of oxidation.
It was not correct, but it was not totally wrong in a practical sense.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Can you quote or post me a link to this new evidence that supposedly disproves evolution.

Most of what I've found ar the same scientifically wrong points raised once and again by creationists.
And now some who claim not to be creationists, although they repeat their points, and yet fail to provide any reasonable explanation.

I any case I fail to see a motive for "evil evolutionists" to censor the truth and contiue their lie, as some claim.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

BM:
A few sad stories are not indicative of the whole of the scientific community. Scientists are people, after all. People make mistakes.

The theory of evolution is not a valid sample of science as a whole from which to base such sweeping statements about science being a kind of religion.

Evolution is not wrong. The evidence used in the past may well have been flawed, but so what. The currently accepted theory of evolution might not be 100% accurate, but neither were Newton's laws of gravitation. They only represented a special case of relativity. Once we learn more about genetics and such, we will be able to formulate a more precise theory of evolution. All evidence points to some sort of evolutionary processes. We of course do not fully understand them at the present time, but this is not a grounds to fully deny evolution. It is also not grounds to call science a type of religion. Religious beliefs are based off of: "We say it is this way, so it is this way". Scientific beliefs are based off of: "We see this evidence. We have a theory that the evidence seems to corroborate, amongst other theories. But, this one fits the evidence better than the others, so this theory looks like the best to use. Once we get more evidence, we can re-evaluate our theory, to see if we were right or not."

Since scientists are people, they are allowed to make mistakes. They try to minimize their errors, but they can not catch them all.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

I don't have nearly enough education or background to contribute to any of the arguments proffered here. One of the most frequently used words in this thread is
"Theory"
I thought I might offer an idea of what "Theory" means. In short it means that the concept has not been proven.
http://thinkertools.soe.berkeley.edu.../c_theory.html
Maybe everyone knows this but it seems a lot of the theorys here are being presented as fact. Then again this could be my lack of understanding and could be atributed to "he's off his meds again" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Gryphin, when used in Scientific terms, a Hypothesis is an unproven assumption about how something will work. A Theory is a hypothesis that is backed by proper evidence and experimentation, so it can be taken to be true. A Law is something that has been proven to be correct in all cases, and can be taken as a universal fact (until we find more situations in which the law could apply, and we have ot test it out to see if it is true, or if it is a special case of the bigger picture, like Newton's laws of gravitation and force).

This is another example of how dictionary definitions are not good to rely on for complex terms. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

http://www.concannon.net/wilmer/Wilmer's%20WebPage/SCIMETH.htm ] SCIENTIFIC METHOD [/url]

Edit: Link refuses to appear like a link.

[ March 16, 2003, 03:04: Message edited by: Andr&eacutes Lescano ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Well, I see why Fyron is repeating himself so much. People won't see what is right in from of their faces if it doesn't meet their pre-conceived notions.

http://www.alternativescience.com/sc...censorship.htm is a page featuring some relatively recent (in the Last decade) examples of the scientific establishment refusing to allow criticism of evolution. You can probably do some reasearch Online and find other sources to prove that these people exist and what is describe really happened.

http://www.alternativescience.com is the main site, which includes some pages on 'Shattering the Myths of Darwinism' a major book which lays out in fairly simple terms how the Darwinian picture of evolution doesn't work and never has.

http://www.alternativescience.com/sh...-Darwinism.htm is the direct link to the book outline and contents.

It's not about 'new' evidence. It's about the fraud of asserting that the old evidence was adequate. It wasn't. And anyone with academic or scientific credentials will be run out of their jobs for attempting to point this out. The author of this book, a professional journalist rather than an academic, was subjected to considerable attacks, including the usual character assassination and behind-the-scenes blacklisting.

Fyron:

The 'few sad cases' listed on that site are just what that one author is aware of. There is much, much more if you want to do some research. So in fact scientists DO assert things and punish people for questioning their assertions instead of accepting authority from on high. Science in the 'real world' is just like religion. I keep putting the evidence in front of your face and you keep refusing to acknowledge it. You are doing exactly what you accuse the 'religious' types of doing. Rejecting anything that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions. As I said, there is far less difference between the so-called 'scientific' world view and the religious one than you or most people want to believe. And you are demonstrating it right here and now.

How do you assert that 'Evolution is not wrong.' when there is no proof that it is right? You keep saying that religion makes arbitrary assertions and then assert that science must be right even if it didn't have the evidence before and doesn't have it now. Huh? An honest 'scientist' would admit that we have no idea how life came to be how it is. Do you see the difference between asserting something is right because it's 'science' and 'not religion' versus simply admitting there is no certainty?

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Is there some particular reason why these people cannot come up with a better theory than evolution to explain things?

"Any model is better than none"

Since evolution is a model for the situation, and there are no decent alternatives, we will continue to use evolution.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Fyron, thanks
Andrés, thanks, :: saves link, goes and takes meds http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif :::
I'll try to asorb that in the morning.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, anyone that questions the party line is run out of the field. Kinda hard to conduct research when your colleagues refuse to talk to you, reject your articles in peer-reviewed publications, and get you fired from your lab/university.

Stephen Jay Gould faced some fairly hostile reactions for merely proposing a slight modification of the theory. It's an on-going controversy though a bit less heated than it was. Do a web search on 'Punctuated Equilibrium' and read about it.

[ March 16, 2003, 03:51: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

There is also this link:
http://skepdic.com/refuge/altscience.html

PS
Baron:
So, have you googled it lately?
And do you have a link to a good anti-PE page on it?

The supershort SJ summary:
When you have huge herds intermingling, they all get shoved back to the average due to the effects of sexual reproduction and gene mixing, and there is a lot of stability.

When some Groups get cut off from the mainstream, they have a chance to become specialized from the main pop. Living in a unique environment, having a relatively small population (less averaging out of mutations, inbreeding, etc), being a group of relative freaks getting kicked out, and anything else you find to throw in.

Then if they get reconnected to the main swath of territory and happen to have an advantage, they take over in a few thousand years. Bam! If they don't, too bad, another group will get a shot later on; we have many millions of years and acres to work with.

Reminds me of the recent trend towards mixed "races" of people (and the generation of the Groups in the first place), and the whole killer bees thing. Also of the world wars (uberrace & all), but that's more politics and technology than just biology.

[ March 16, 2003, 05:07: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Just a few historical points to throw into the frying pan:

1) Darwin was not the first to propose evolution of species. Lamarck, Chambers, and a number of others wrote about it decades earlier than Darwin. They had different ideas about how evolution worked, though. Darwin's revolutionary idea was natural selection - the process by which he thought evolution worked - not the concept of evolution itself.

2) The concept of evolution does have a history, and it has evolved http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif over time. Lamarck's evolution by adaptation lost out to Darwin's natural selection. But not right away. Most European (and especially British) scientists of the late nineteenth century believed in directed evolution. In other words, God directed how evolution progressed. They did not accept Darwin's random variation idea. Our discussion of evolution versus creation would seem silly to them because they saw evolution and God in the same evidence. Our modern theory is actually a combination of Mendelian genetics and Darwin's theory that did not become the generally accepted theory until a few decades into the twentieth century. So, evolution has not been a monolithic, never-changing dogma. Yes, it has become a kind of secular religion to some people in our society, with unfortunate results. But it has changed, and probably will again.

We cannot really know for sure if evolution is true because the time period is too long - we haven't been around to actually see it. As Fontenelle once once wrote, "All philosophy [he meant natural philosophy, which we would now call science] is based on two things only: curiosity and poor eyesight...the trouble is we want to know more than we can see." (Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds, 1686) So, we try to do our best with the evidence at hand. Any true scientist, in my view, will acknowledge the provisional nature of scientific knowledge and not treat it like dogma.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Baron, I was looking for the supposed scientific evidence, not complains about censorship in a yellow-press pseudo-scientific page.

Most of what I see there is what I said, complains about censorship, about a work called "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism". They seem to trying to sell me a book but looking at the contents page is enogh.

Those complains don't sound realistic at all. It's curious that it only quotes single words and short phrases and not longer complains.
What people were most likely complaining about was about deceiving people disguising those lies as true science.
And I really can't believe that no one actually refuted at least the most outright lies in that work.

Most of the points are repetitions of the same wrong arguments creationists have been using for decades, not something new (even if the authors claims not to be a creationist) and it looks that the only intention is to sell me a book.

The link I had posted about Evolution Vs. Creationisms is still valid conters most of those points with serious scientific yet easy to understand explanations.

The only new evidence that appears to be new genetic analisys that prove that some species are not so genetically similar as they were thought to be.
I'll have to investigate but I suspect that we're talking about a few exeptions that don't alter the big picture.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

BM:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I know what you are trying to do, and it is not going to work.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, not at all. You are simply not understanding what I have posted. Your Posts about "scientists DO assert things and punish people for questioning their assertions instead of accepting authority from on high" are wrong, and I see no need to repeat myself again as to why.

That page on scientific censorship is so steeped in biased propaganda and half-truths that I fail to see how you can actually believe what it says (unless, of course, you are only looking for other people with your not-quite-correct beliefs in an attempt to prove that you are not wrong). It has very little value, and I am sorry for you if you were duped into purchasing the book it advertises.

The page on shattering Darwin's theory of evolution does nothing to shatter his theory. Almost none of the quotes actually have any good scientific backing. It hurts your case more than helps it.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The theory of evolution does NOT say anything about how life came to be. It says that today, blah blah blah. It makes absolutley no mention on the origins of life. The two issues are wholely unrelated. Darwin (and Lamark et all) did not mention the origins of life in their theories, and the currently accepted theory of evolution does not either.

I have constantly said that there is no certainty to the theory of evolution. I never once said that "it is right because it is science". That is you placing words in my mouth. That, or not understanding what I posted. Or maybe seeing what you want me to have posted and going from there, instead of what I actually posted.

And again, the theory of evolution is not a representative sample of science in general. Using it as such is wholely wrong.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If only I could have said it in such a simple fashion, BM would not have gone off on such an unfounded tangent. Oh well.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

I agree that there may be another factor that complements natural selection as amechanism of evolution.
About the evolution of birds, you have example of biped dinosaurs that used their arms for balance and of some that were covered with feathers, then you even have the famous Archaeopteryx.
Yes is uncertain exactly how they achieved flight, but what would be your alternative explanation, intelligent design?

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That isn't to hard to explain.
Take animals living in trees who are good to jump from tree to tree. For them the step to better gliding and eventually wings would be beneficial.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Here are some example of reptile-bird transtions:
Talk Origins

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

"But now we have the problem why a creature, no more 4-legged but no bird either, is more fit to survive then the extreme ones (legged/flying)."

Two words. Flying squirel. That's the sort of intermediate form you'd likely see..glide from tree to tree, climb, repeat. Could be a major advantage depending on what kind of predators were below.

Phoenix-D

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Well, this is going nowhere but I'll toss out my position one more time before giving up.

The Shattering the Myths of Darwinism page is a summary, not the book. Maybe you should try reading the book before claiming it's full of inaccuracies? You can probably get it at a library like many other books and not have to pay for it. I don't claim that everything the author included in the book is correct. The author does not claim that everything he included in the book is correct. After discovering that evolutionary science was not anywhere near as complete and certain as we are taught in school he sought out the various alternative views offered over the years, many being suppressed by 'orthodox' science, and catalogued them. He is merely reporting what he found. And it's entirely possible that he did not explain some of these things as well as he should have. He is a journalist, not a scientist. He does give a lot of sources you could track down. Again, if you bothered to read the book instead of dismiss the summary.

And so what if those arguments have been used by creationists? The motive of the arguer has no bearing on the validity of the argument. This is the most blatant sort of logical mistake. You see why I don't think the community of believers in 'science' are really rational or scientific?

There are many more books pointing out the flaws of Darwinian theory, btw. It's not just this one. Here are just a couple of the more respectable ones written by 'real' scientists. Admittedly, they aren't easy to find. That's why I pointed to Milton's book first. It's easy to find.

The Transformist Illusion by Douglas Dewar (DeHoff Publications, 1957)

Flaws in the Theory of Evolution by Evan Shute (Craig Press, 1961)

Fyron:

I give up. You flat out deny what I say in the face of proof and deny you are denying. Then you distort what I say and claim I am distorting you. Look at what you quoted. I typed how life came to be how it is, not 'how life came to be'. There it is quoted right over your own distortion, and you went right ahead and chopped off half of the phrase to make it into a different claim. Evolution is not about 'how life came to be how it is'? Then what is it? Isn't Darwin's famous book titled 'The Origin of Species'?

Anyway, I see now why you shouldn't confuse idealogues with facts. I have better things to do.

[ March 16, 2003, 18:23: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

BM:
It's unfair to use an archaic theory of evolution (purely gradual) as an example to 'disprove' evolution in its entirety. Modern views include both gradual and dynamic theories and are much more inclusive of the available evidence.

As far as evolution being impossible to actually observe, well that's not quite true. Scientists have been studying bacteria and viruses for many decades (longer actually but they didn't really have the tools). So long as you study something with a high enough rate of reproduction (and short enough lifespan) aspects of evolution can be seen in a reasonable amount of time. This accounts for the prevalance of super-flu's and such and is one more piece of evidence one the side of evolution.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So you have a better bacterium. 1)It's still a bacterium; 2)It's still the same disease; 3)It could just as easily be evidence to support intelligent design--highly adaptive designs would make more sense.

Reptiles -> birds: There are more fundamental differences than just legs/wings. Most reptiles have 3-chambered hearts; most birds have 4-chambered hearts. Did it progress through a 3 1/2-chambered heart, or did the fourth one just happen all at once? Scales and feathers have no structural similarity, and even come from different genes. In fact, many of the "similarities" between any given pair of orders or families are found in completely different genes. There's nothing to suggest a mechanism for this "gene-hopping."

Explanations for legs to wings: Sure, it all sounds nice, but we don't see any examples of transitions between them. Unless, of course, it just made big jumps.

Fewer genetic similarities: So evolution will adapt its theory to meet this new obstacle. Does that mean they'll redraw the "evolution tree" we see so much of? Will it now be based on genetic similarities, instead of physical ones?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yet this is exactly what happens from kindergarten through graduation in nearly every school across the country. Evolution is science; anything else is religion; let's not examine the evidence to see if parhaps there could be two interpretations. Why don't we start by teaching kids objective science and let them evaluate the evidence later? You know, the old "Teach them how to think, not just what to think" sort of thing?

Creationist bias/non-objectivity: Every evolutionist has just as much at stake in the debate as any creationist--his worldview, his life's work, his vocation.... There is just as much vitriol, hatred, and lack of objectivity coming from the evolutionist side as has been attributed to the creationist side. Whatever they want to say, it still comes down to "We have science, and you don't." The implication is that their science is objective and pure as the wind-driven snow, while their opponents are blinded by their religion and irrational thinking. In reality, few evolutionists are able to accept that there is another interpretation of the evidence we see and that they don't hold absolute truth. Some merely remain silent; some prefer to "beat 'em with the science stick" until they back off or shut up.

Any theory is better than no theory: 1)No, it's not; a false theory would not be better than a true one; 2)I don't see "no theory" being advocated. All that's been asked is for the evidence to be held up to both theories, not just evolution. The only basis for calling it "no theory" is if one has already rejected creation/intelligent design as a theory. There seems to be a widespread fondness for tossing creation based on the half of the evidence with which it has difficulty, while conveniently ignoring the half with which evolution has difficulty. Maybe a better way of stating that would be this: Evolutionists love to pass off creationist arguments by saying, "No, the evidence really means this," while not admitting the possibility of alternative interpretations of evidence which has been interpreted to support them.

Fyron: Not everything in this post is directed toward you, so let's not inflate your post count by quoting everything that doesn't apply to you and saying "I never said this," okay? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ March 16, 2003, 20:43: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So you have a better bacterium. 1)It's still a bacterium; 2)It's still the same disease; 3)It could just as easily be evidence to support intelligent design--highly adaptive designs would make more sense.

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Observed instances of origin of new species can be found here:

talk origins

Also suggest reading this page, which describes five major misconceptions about evolution:

talk origins

I encourage you read the entire talk origins faq, and post to talk origins if you really think you have Evolution beat. Then get back to us with your results.
-spoon

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

I didn't find anyone defending a "no-theory", or an alternative third theory.

All I links I could find were supporting some variation of creationism. That name is discredited so now they avoid using it, but they present the same case, perhaps not a literally biblic creationism, "intelligent design" and "guided evolution" are just other names and variants of creationism.
Most times they use another wrong theory, the young-earth theory to support them (if you read the links posted here you'll find the correct explanation for every one of the supposed flaws uncovered in evolution, do we need to copy and paste every one here?)
And ALLWAYS involve an "intelligent designer" or some other name to replace God.

The objective of presenting them as alternative scientifically valid theories, is to disguise religion as science and be able to teach in public schools that are supposed to be lay in the US (and BTW also here in Argentina) that this "intelligent designer" exists.
I other words, to teach students that the God existence is scientifically proved.
+

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

BM:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I was not quoting anything there. Quoting you would have involved placing it in quote UBB tags. I did not distort anything there. In fact, you never said anything about "how life came to be how it is". I do not see it in any of your Posts.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, because _you never said that phrase_. It was made-up "quote" (though not really a quote of anything, as it is not a quote), not a quote of you.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You do realize that I said that the theory of evolution is currently undergoing major re-evaluation, right? I never once said that the theory of evolution is set in stone, and that is how it is. You seem to think I have argued that, when I haven't. In fact, everything I have said leads to "if it is proven wrong, it will be changed to accomodate new evidence/experimentation".

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Exactly what I have been saying all along. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Krsqk:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Krsqk, please do not get into that half-organ garbage again. It did not help your case in that old thread, and it will not help here. Bringing it up will only hurt your argument.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes we do. There are dinorsaur fossils with legs and half-wings instead of arms. Actually, legs to wings is wrong. It is arms to wings that is the correct path.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is a distinct possibility.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And this is done constantly. Pure creation with no evolution always falls short because there is no valid evidence supporting it. The only "evidence" is false theories and incorrect analysis of the evidence. This is not to say that the current theory of evolution and all of the currently held paths of evolution are absolutely correct (as they probably are not), just to say that pure creationism is not supported by any valid evidence that we have.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I haven't done anything of the sort so far, so what makes you think I would start doing it now?